<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.9/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1997.9/to:1998.9/plot/gistemp/from:2004.9/to:2005.9/plot/gistemp/from:2006.9/to:2007.9/plot/gistemp/from:2009.9/to:2010.9/plot/gistemp/from:1997.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997.9/trend" rel="nofollow">three records since 1997.9-1998.9</a>
And we're likely going to get another one 2012.9 to 2013.9.
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Post Normal Science: Deadlines by Myrrh
That is just one way in which solar energy heats the ocean, but it points out the error in your claim that “…visible light to chemical energy, the creation of sugars, this is not conversion to heat”
It takes direct conversion to heat to heat something up. It takes direct heating of land and oceans to get our weather – this, as I explained somewhere in the last few days, takes concentrated heat, not waste heat. Waste heat is what you produce when you’ve had your dinner. It may well raise your temperature, may well warm up the atmosphere impinging on your skin, but it will not heat the earth or ocean to create a thunderstorm. This waste heat is what comes from the upwelling Earth and life, it is not concentrated, it is random, in all directions, it does not have the power to travel far or do a signifcant amount of work.
AGWScienceFiction fisics has replaced with Shortwave, Light, the real direct heat from the Sun which creates our huge weather systems from differential heating, which is concentrated thermal infrared travelling in straight lines from the Sun to the Earth’s surface.
Thermodynamics is the study of this concentrated Heat, because it has the Power to do Work. Think Steam Engines.
Optics, is the study of Light..
Visible light, Light, from the Sun cannot directly heat the oceans or land which is what it takes to get our weather systems moving.
Unless you can get to grips with how our weather systems work, the huge winds travelling from the Equator to the Poles, our great storms, etc. created by land and oceans heating differently, you will not get a sense of scale in this. Land heats up quicker than water and loses heat more quickly, they have different heat capacities. Hot air rises, cold air sinks. Air is a heavy, voluminous, fluid ocean of gas above and around us. Winds are volumes of this on the move, they are currents in Air just as volumes of water on the move in our ocean are currents, created by differential heating.
The missing heat of AGW/Trenberth – since he has given Shortwave from the Sun the properties of Longwave direct from the Sun, Heat, and taken out the direct Heat from the Sun, Longwave, Thermal Infrared, he can’t now account for the missing heat which is created by Life…, the waste heat from photosynthesis as plants burn the sugar and which is transpired, the waste heat from animals ditto.
The fake fisics has so corrupted real world physics that there is no internal consistency in it. That’s also why those ‘defending’ AGW fisics keep coming up with absurd scenarios. Why the only experiments fetched are faked. Why they don’t produce any real experiments. There aren’t any real experiments to show impossible physics..
Re: “It is your greenhouse scenario, it is your cartoon energy budget, it is the claim that visible light is absorbed by the water of the oceans and absorption means that it is heating the water.”
Personally, as someone with a couple of physics degrees and who has been involved with climate scientists for a number of years, and read a lot of climate science literature for lay people, noone has ever made such a specific claim. So I take it that you do not have a citation of the very specific claim that it is only the water that absorbs the photons.
I gave you Trenberth’s description, which with your physics background I would have thought you could understand.
The claim is that Shortwave, Solar, heats land and oceans, physically heat the rocks and soil, physically heats the water in ocean and lakes; the pretence is that it is Solar energy which has the power to heat land and oceans, not that it isn’t heating these…
Hence all the claims that water absorbs visible light, and my many arguments against this claim by saying that water is transparent to visible light.
Ah, you might be missing this because Trenberth is still pretending to being a meteorologist.. And those who write on this are assuming normal heating of oceans and land in the meteorology.
For example:
“First we had to consider the range of possibilities. If oceanic heat transport does not create the differences in regional climate across the North Atlantic (or North Pacific), what does? An obvious alternative explanation is that standard of high school geography education: Because the heat capacity of water is so much greater than that of rock or soil, the ocean warms more slowly in summer than does land. For the same reason, it cools more slowly in winter. That effect alone means that the seasonal cycle of sea-surface temperature is considerably less than that of land surfaces at the same latitude, which is why summers near the sea are cooler and winters are warmer than at equivalent sites located inland.The effect of differing heat capacities is augmented by the fact that the Sun’s heat is stored within a larger mass in the ocean than on land. The heat reservoir is bigger because, as the Sun’s rays are absorbed in the upper several meters of the ocean, the wind mixes that water downward so that, in the end, solar energy heats several tens of meters of water. On land, the absorbed heat of the Sun can only diffuse downward and does not reach deeper than a meter or two during a season. The greater density of soil and rock (which ranges up to three times that of water) cannot make up for this difference in volume of material that the Sun heats and for the difference in heat capacity of water compared with soil or rock.”
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=999&y=0&no=&content=true&page=5&css=print
Visible Light cannot heat rock and soil either. It is not a thermal energy, it can’t do the work, it works on a different scale.
The APS quotes do not rule in or rule out any particular methods by which radiation penetration of the oceans can lead to heating of the oceans, be it absorption by the water molecules, absorption by phytoplankton, fish, whales, sea weed, detritis etc., absorption by the ocean bottom (in shallow water). It seems like all the methods are reasonable, and are real physics.
Sorry if this post is a bit disjointed, I got most of the way replying and worked out, I think, why you didn’t see it in the quote.
I hope the further quote makes it clearer, but if you go to a good meteorological page and read up on how basic weather happens – look up inshore/offshore winds for the difference heat capacity – and note that as on the same page as the quote above, it is the greater heating at the tropics of both water and land which drives our weather system.
“Our revised view of things did not, however, mean that heat transport in the ocean does not influence climate. The ocean indeed absorbs more heat from the Sun near the equator than it loses back to the atmosphere (primarily by evaporation). And oceanic currents indeed move the excess heat poleward before releasing it to the atmosphere in the middle latitudes.”
I don’t know what degrees you’ve got in physics, but this is basic thermodynamics. As I asked Dave Springer, how much are these, I think he called it particulate matter, being heated up themselves to heat the water around them? [to the great extent necessary to drive our weather systems]. You can get a hundred people to jump into a swimming pool with a water temperature below body temp, so what is that compared with direct heating of water as at the equator where the Sun is very very hot and heating the water itself, which has a great capacity to absorb heat. I don’t recall the figures off hand, but look up how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of water.
Visible light is not a thermal energy, absorption by pigments is not direct heating of them, the chlorophyll is not being heated, it’s using the visible light to change carbon dioxide and water into sugars.
Otherwise it’s as SamNC, Trenberth’s missing heat from secondary heating in burning fuel for energy by life itself. This is always going to be on a small, insignificant as a power to do work heating water local scale, but taken as a whole it accounts for some, and of the upwelling heat.
What AGWSF fisics has done here is to give the property of direct, beam, heat from the Sun, to shortwave, which isn’t a thermal energy, it’s Light. So pages describing the Sun’s heat heating land will sometimes appear, but meaning shortwave as they’re pushing the AGW fisics, like here:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sweather2.htmThere’s a lot of sleight of hand goes on in these descriptions, sometimes unknowingly, people writing simply repeating the fisics memes, sometimes as that NASA page, if one knows the difference, it looks like their wording is deliberately disingenous..
But the critical missing heat is the direct thermal energy from the Sun, the longwave thermal infrared..
Anyway, hope this helps.
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by Vaughan Pratt
<i>I’ve never been really suspected the atmosphere is more than the tail on the dog and the brunt of its effect is providing enough pressure so liquid water can exist in a 100C range at sea level.</i>
I think the <a href="http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html" rel="nofollow">phase diagram of water</a> answers the question of what happens to the oceans when the atmosphere is removed. The triple point is at 612 Pascals, corresponding to removing 99.4% of the atmosphere. Down to that pressure water freezes at essentially 0 C. Even if what remains is 100% water vapor, that won't be enough greenhouse effect to prevent the oceans from freezing over.
But if the pressure were to drop below that, the frozen ocean would gradually sublime away, the same way dry ice does.
However this would tend to maintain the water vapor in the atmosphere. I would guess that, with all other gases gone, it would take relatively little of the ocean to sublime in order to maintain the pressure above the triple point, which would prevent further sublimation. The atmosphere (all water vapor at that stage) would then stabilize at a tad over 600 Pascals.
Were Ming the Merciless to then steal all of Earth's atmosphere for the benefit of Mars in one massive heist, the atmosphere should fairly quickly return to 600+ Pascals, still all water vapor.
(This all assumes that no other gases are emitted by anything, of course.)
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
What wags the tail? That’s right pilgrim, the big dog wags the tail. I bet you are good picking stocks 
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/11/12 by Robert
<blockquote>Of course I’ve read it. But your comments revealed you haven’t the slightest understanding about the complexities it makes so clear, nor the relevance to policy.</blockquote>
Ah. So you're not going by what the paper actually says in plain English. More of the subtext.
But you should be able to deal with the explicit meaning, not run away from it. I based my discussion on what the paper actually said, and you ignored that. A little too postmodern for me, Peter!
What the paper actually did was compare carbon tax revenue to total tax revenue and consider what that might imply about practical limitations to how countries can price carbon. It's all there in the abstract:
<blockquote>A cap is imposed on the carbon tax rate if the total tax revenue is not allowed to increase. Using recent data on the carbon-intensity of the economy and the overall tax take, I show that this cap constrains almost any climate policy in at least some countries. A larger number of countries, emitting a substantial share of global carbon dioxide, cannot fully participate if the carbon tax (or equivalent alternative regulation) is high enough to meet the 2oC target. For that target, the carbon tax revenue in 2020 is greater than 10% of total tax revenue in every country.</blockquote>
Do you see anything there about the political barriers to a carbon tax, or enforcement mechanisms, or fraud prevention? You do not, <b>because that is not actually what this paper is about. Tol is talking about other things.</b>
Deal with the explicit, overt, declarative meaning of the actual words written, and then maybe we can sit in a nice drum circle and talk about how Tol's paper makes you feel.
↧
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by Vaughan Pratt
Added complication: the noonday sun in the tropics should melt the top layer of ice to slush. However the pressure at sea level should be the same around the globe including the poles. I would guess the tropics would be the main contributor to keeping global sea level pressure at very close to the triple point of 612 Pa, but that’s just a guess. Nice question for your physics and climate science friends.
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by harrywr2
lolwot | August 14, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
<i>Yes there is. It makes coal cheaper.</i>
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of costs of production. I.E. A product can never be sold for an extended period of time below the cost of production, production will contract. The price will be 'temporarily' cheaper while the production capacity adjusts to the new reality.
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by Joshua
Harry –
Just wondering if you might have some comment. (It was you that I discussed “irrational” fear about nuclear energy with over at Keith’s, wasn’t it?)
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/11/12 by Joshua
It’s also clear your mind is tightly shut. You believe in Left ideology and can’t even seriously consider anything the Left does not endorse.
Peter’s so cute when he gets wound up. The irony burns.
↧
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by JCH
How can an El Nino in 1998 heat the SAT in 2000, or any other year? You analysis is hopelessly flawed. You are saying an El Nino instantly heated the SAT, and then the heat essentially stayed there. It obviously did not. It mostly goes to outer space. The 1998 El Nino made the atmosphere very hot in 1988. Making trend lines from that crest is like getting lost in the woods.
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970%20/to:1984/mean:12/offset:-0.32/plot/uah/to:1998/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1999/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1975/trend/plot/uah/from:1982/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/to:1998/trend" rel="nofollow">Both prior to the 1998 El Nino and after it, AGW marched ever upward.</a>
The UAH series starts in a period of El Nino dominance, and it totally distorts the trend to 1998. Starting the trend in 1982 clearly shows it is little different than GisTemp.
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
David Springer, “1) S-B emitted power of a 4C black body is 334W/m2″ Check
“2) solar constant is 1366E/m2″ Actually for the Faint Sun Paradox I was using 70% of 1341Wm-2 and considering only a local albedo of 0.08 for liquid water. For the Faint Sun Paradox I could have used 1380Wm-2 available during perigee. Since the problem only requires maintaining liquid water, the global albedo is irrelevant initially.
“3) solar constant projected onto a sphere is 341W/m2″ Approximately 341Wm-2, but 431Wm-2 minimum for a the day half cycle is more important than global average. Because of the Mpemba effect and ice insulation, that would allow a net energy gain for a 24 hour period. As water vapor is increased in that atmosphere, that additional heat capacity/insulation potential would help with the increase in albedo as a trade off. Remember, I started this because of the faint young sun paradox conference which I did not attend.
“4) average temperature of the global ocean is 4C” Roughly. The main thing is the salt density stratification which allows 21C average surface temperature with roughly 4C average volume temperature. The depth of the mixing layer would vary with heat content and salinity with the ~4C maintained by -1.9C sinking water at the ice formation boundary. If the oceans weren’t saline, we wouldn’t be here.
↧
Comment on Week in review 8/11/12 by Joshua
Hey – Robert,
It’s also clear your mind is tightly shut. You believe in Left ideology and can’t even seriously consider anything the Left does not endorse.</blockquote.
I guess that rules out you supporting emissions trading/Can and Trade and an energy tax (both ideas originally embraced by "the right"), let alone a healthcare mandate.
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by P.E.
Just like how the whale oil producers couldn’t compete with that newfangled Pennsylvania oil out of the ground, huh?
↧
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by David Wojick
Sorry Joshua, but I do not understannd your comment. Are you asking me a question? If so what is it? If not, what is your specific claim?
My point about preparedness is simply that in the cacophany of the debate no one has noticed my simple point about AGW already being falsified. Nor are they likely too. It is very funny if I am right. I laugh more than I cry.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Latimer Alder
@webbie
On which page of your document can I see that you predicted that the production in August 2012 will be 1.9 million and then decreases to 1.6 million in September?
If you can’t show me those, then your claim to be ‘pretty much spot on’ is wildly exaggerated.
JFI what are your predictions for each of the next coming 12 months? Make them now and we can all assess your soothsaying skill during the coming year
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
Vaughan, “We may be talking about different lags (easy to do since there are so many things that can lag each other). ” I don’t think so. Using UAH NH land versus Mauna Loa I was getting a very good “signature” of CO2 with the typical noise. When I compared the ocean extratropics and tropics I was seeing a ENSO harmonic with a shorter NH lag than SH lag with what looks like a reflected return complementary wave. 1998 pretty much looks like a rogue wave signature and 1995 had the weird precursor signature. Remember I am playing with the chaotic pattern recognition or super tea leaf reading if you prefer You should see the same thing comparing Fourier transforms of the extratropic and tropical oceans.
That leads me to believe the NH CO2 was amplified by NH ocean lag of the SH oceans and land use. The two would look about the same, but the post 1995 coordination hints that the internal variability is the stronger signal. The major land use and black carbon impact in the NH starts around the time Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands Campaign went south with their version of the dust bowl.
There are a lot of lags and variables, but the internal natural variability appears stronger than expected with much longer pseudo cycle periods, much like A. M. Selvam predicts.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by Latimer Alder
Maybe Iowa gets a lot of subsidy from the rest of the US.
But what if Iowa were a standalone country? Where would it get the money to subsidise the farmers? It wouldn’t have the resources available from the rest of the US. Because that is the proposition put forward by Salmond for Scotland.
Subsidies do not grow on magic money trees
↧
↧
Comment on Philosophical reflections on climate model projections by steven
Vaughan, the lack of a trend in water vapor would seem to contradict warming since 1995 unless there is a reason why I shouldn’t be able to use water vapor as a proxy for temperature?
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by sunshinehours1
Shale gas and oil will make up the difference if the government allows it to.
↧
Comment on Making Scotland the Green Energy Capital of Europe by JimJ
If we could just breed enough hampsters. Think about all those little critters turning wheels hooked up to the grid. Of course, you’d still have to feed em, not sure what that would cost, but still…. Renewables in their present state of developement just won’t cut it. Why do the bright people on this blog keep promoting this baloney.
Jim
↧
